FCC Offers Internet Discount

[TheBigA]

This is something Democrats have wanted to do for a while, and that's offer aid to people unable to afford broadband internet. There's $3.2 billion in the Covid Relief bill that will provide help, especially for those still going to school virtually. The money is actually being given out by the FCC:

Are you eligible for the FCC's emergency internet discount program? Here's how to find out

More help is coming soon for the many Americans still struggling to afford at-home, high-speed internet, which has become an essential for school, work and many other areas of life during the pandemic.

www.cnn.com

 

[Kelly A]

Depending on the location, public Internet can be expensive. But does giving carriers/ISP's taxpayer dollars, then telling them to give low income members of the public free Internet, just turn into more government-to-corporate handouts? Just as with the original PPP, I doubt there are enough checks and balances in place to make sure a company like AT&T or Verizon don't just pocket the money, or use it to buy promotional ads claiming that they're providing free Internet for low-no income families. Either way, that money hits the ISP'/carrier's balance sheets as profit.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Depending on the location, public Internet can be expensive. But does giving carriers/ISP's taxpayer dollars, then telling them to give low income members of the public free Internet, just turn into more government-to-corporate handouts? Just as with the original PPP, I doubt there are enough checks and balances in place to make sure a company like AT&T or Verizon don't just pocket the money, or use it to buy promotional ads claiming that they're providing free Internet for low-no income families. Either way, that money hits the ISP'/carrier's balance sheets as profit.

Hi, Alaska resident here.. and no, starlink won't be available till at least 2022 here and it reportedly doesnt work below about -25 below zero.. and it very easily, very often gets colder than that here. I'm using Exede satellite internet in the bush

 

[TheBigA]

AT&T or Verizon don't just pocket the money, or use it to buy promotional ads claiming that they're providing free Internet for low-no income families.

The companies aren't the ones providing the money in any way so they can't make that claim. Food bought with government assistance isn't benevolence on the part of the grocery industry. The alternative is for the government itself to get into the ISP business, and those companies don't want that. Government-provided internet is what the Democrats would prefer, but this uses existing corporate infrastructure. In the same way Obamacare isn't a government-provided health care system. It uses existing corporate infrastructure such as insurance companies and health care providers. In that way, it's a windfall for the insurance industry. But the end result is it's the only way that millions of people were able to afford some form of healthcare, because the for-profit industry wasn't going to do anything to help those people.

 

[Delete My Account]

And, more specifically, most Democrats in academia, business and on the state level that I've discussed this with are advocates of municipal broadband - which is an even more local program that has been successful, so they're not necessarily advocating a federalization of broadband service.

Unsurprisingly, corporations like Cox don't like this at all and spend heavily to defeat it - appealing to people's fears about "big government."

siloam springs (from 2012 - but illustrative.)

 

[landtuna]

Government-provided internet is what the Democrats would prefer...

Where did you hear that?

 

[davideduardo]

Depending on the location, public Internet can be expensive. But does giving carriers/ISP's taxpayer dollars, then telling them to give low income members of the public free Internet, just turn into more government-to-corporate handouts? Just as with the original PPP, I doubt there are enough checks and balances in place to make sure a company like AT&T or Verizon don't just pocket the money, or use it to buy promotional ads claiming that they're providing free Internet for low-no income families. Either way, that money hits the ISP'/carrier's balance sheets as profit.

In this case, a number of European nations have a better policy which is to have the government provide the infrastructure and both public and private providers and market the services.

This is similar to the digital broadcasting in a number of nations where the government installs the transmission facilities and private sector companies can apply to use one of the channels for commercial broadcasting but the frequencies are owned by the government.

 

[landtuna]

In this case, a number of European nations have a better policy which is to have the government provide the infrastructure and both public and private providers and market the services.

This is similar to the digital broadcasting in a number of nations where the government installs the transmission facilities and private sector companies can apply to use one of the channels for commercial broadcasting but the frequencies are owned by the government.

I think we'd need a much more capable and responsive government to build and manage these facilities. The 'government' currently has overseer and licensing responsibility on private companies who want to build and operate these facilities and it seems to take them forever to accomplish anything. A private company recently came through my neighborhood plowing up the earth for fiber and they made a real mess. Calls to the local government officials responsible for this project were at worst ignored and at best were responded to very late. A number of residents just gave up and repaired their property themselves but that option is not available to every neighborhood.

And not only that but I doubt any government I am aware of has the infrastructure or intelligence to perform that function. And we're talking about creating yet another huge government bureaucracy.

 

[TheBigA]

Where did you hear that?

Bernie Sanders:

Bernie Sanders proposes $150 billion for public broadband improvements - Engadget

Bernie Sanders has unveiled his plan for US broadband if he wins the 2020 presidential election, and it won't surprise you to hear that his strategy would focus on making high-speed internet as widely accessible as possible. He intends to earmark $150 billion (as part of the Green New Deal) for...

www.engadget.com

He wants the government to provide broadband internet service to people in public housing. That's kind of what this program in the Covid bill does.

 

[gr8oldies]

And, more specifically, most Democrats in academia, business and on the state level that I've discussed this with are advocates of municipal broadband - which is an even more local program that has been successful, so they're not necessarily advocating a federalization of broadband service.

Unsurprisingly, corporations like Cox don't like this at all and spend heavily to defeat it - appealing to people's fears about "big government."

siloam springs (from 2012 - but illustrative.)

Chattanooga has municipal broadband with what I understand to be European-quality speed. The GQP in our state, ever anxious to preserve corporate monopolies, forbid Chattanooga from selling its service to surrounding areas let alone other cities in the state, thus its Comcast or nothing where I live (some surrounding areas have Spectrum)

 

[landtuna]

Bernie Sanders:

Bernie Sanders proposes $150 billion for public broadband improvements - Engadget

Bernie Sanders has unveiled his plan for US broadband if he wins the 2020 presidential election, and it won't surprise you to hear that his strategy would focus on making high-speed internet as widely accessible as possible. He intends to earmark $150 billion (as part of the Green New Deal) for...

www.engadget.com

He wants the government to provide broadband internet service to people in public housing. That's kind of what this program in the Covid bill does.

Bernie isn't a major player any longer. He's shouting at the moon.

That's a bit less than saying the government would take over all infrastructure. Personally, I would not support this new expense. We need to fund public education, nourishment and medical programs first. People don't need the Internet to learn and it can be a gigantic distraction.

 

[landtuna]

Chattanooga has municipal broadband with what I understand to be European-quality speed. The GQP in our state, ever anxious to preserve corporate monopolies, forbid Chattanooga from selling its service to surrounding areas let alone other cities in the state, thus its Comcast or nothing where I live (some surrounding areas have Spectrum)

And that's the major problem we already have and government ownership of infrastructure would make it worse. If your new service sucked who can you call? Government service is notoriously bad. Probably even worse than Comcrap.

 

[gr8oldies]

And that's the major problem we already have and government ownership of infrastructure would make it worse. If your new service sucked who can you call? Government service is notoriously bad. Probably even worse than Comcrap.

Chattanooga's system runs faster than any in the US. I don't see a problem with Chattanooga selling its service and competing with Comcast and Spectrum outside of town. Comcast having essentially a monopoly isn't "free market". We just saw what happened with Texas' privatized, let's do no maintenance and cut costs utility system.

Chattanooga's super-fast, publicly owned Internet

Chattanooga's publicly run, high-speed Internet network offers an alternative to private-sector control.

money.cnn.com